Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st May 2012 23:47 UTC
"He's one of 10 reverse-engineers working full time for a stealthy company funded by some of the biggest names in technology: Apple, Microsoft, Research In Motion, Sony, and Ericsson. Called the Rockstar Consortium, the 32-person outfit has a single-minded mission: It examines successful products, like routers and smartphones, and it tries to find proof that these products infringe on a portfolio of over 4,000 technology patents once owned by one of the world's largest telecommunications companies. When a Rockstar engineer uncovers evidence of infringement, the company documents it, contacts the manufacturer, and demands licensing fees for the patents in question. The demand is backed by the implicit threat of a patent lawsuit in federal court." And then people wonder why I call Apple and Microsoft patent trolls. These are the people destroying this industry, with Apple, Microsoft, RIM, etc. money. Sickeningly low.
Thread beginning with comment 519115
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: How stupid were Google
by kwan_e on Wed 23rd May 2012 12:22
in reply to "RE[2]: How stupid were Google"
Member since:2007-02-18
I just see a not very well run company saturated with a pervasive and naive sense of entitlement stumbling into ill condsidered adventures. Nothing you say contradicts my point, for a very large tech company Google acted with breathtaking nonchalance and stupidity. They deserve everything they get.
On the other hand, if it was Apple in Google's position, you would be praising them for having some devious secret plan and played to lose in their infinite wisdom.
You think of your conclusion first, then you pick the point of view that suits your conclusion. Face it. You're a hack.
RE[3]: How stupid were Google
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 23rd May 2012 12:27
in reply to "RE[2]: How stupid were Google"
Member since:2005-06-29
Right. A company that took a decade to become one of the biggest companies in the world, one of the most loved, trusted, and respected the world over, with more users than probably any other technology company out there, is "not well run". And sure, the most successful mobile operating system of all time - by a long shot - is a "fiasco".
Once, you were just an Apple enthusiast. These days, you're bordering on total nuttiness. You must be following Gruber pretty closely.
Edited 2012-05-23 12:28 UTC
RE[3]: How stupid were Google
by cyrilleberger on Wed 23rd May 2012 12:48
in reply to "RE[2]: How stupid were Google"
Member since:2006-02-01
I admire your confidence in Google's ethics.
For the record, I have no confidence in Google's ethics, and the only information I give them is my search queries. And I do not believe that part of the management was not involved in one way or an other in Google's misbehaviour. However, it is clear that the leader of the company make their best to publicly appear clean, and that is why they would never associate themselves openly to a patent troll.
(And I agree with Thom, you might dislike Android, you might think it is a rip-off of iOS, but calling the most used smartphone OS a fiasco is very very far fetched, by that standard, I have no idea what the word success would mean).
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Why does Google get so much credit in the technology industry? Why, despite the company's many obvious failings, do many geeks and enthusiasts still hold a somewhat positive view on the all-knowing technology giant? A specific talk at Google I/O this week provides the answer.
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
OSNews is a sponsor of this year's O'Reilly OSCON in Portland, Oregon, USA. A lucky OSNews reader will win a free three-day pass, including two tutorials days. To win the pass, post a comment on this story saying something about Open Source Software or OSCON. We'll pick a winner at random next week. If you don't have an OSNews account, you may email us your entry. Part of the conference is the 9th annual Open Source Awards, and today the 16th is the deadline for nominations. If you'd like to nominate an outstanding open source contributor, do it here. Read on for more information about OSCON. Update: The 20% discount code for OSNews readers is "OSN."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
"Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening." That's one way to start an insider explanation of why Windows' performance isn't up to snuff. Written by someone who actually contributes code to the Windows NT kernel, the comment on Hacker News, later deleted but reposted with permission on Marc Bevand's blog, paints a very dreary picture of the state of Windows development. The root issue? Think of how Linux is developed, and you'll know the answer.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
This is one of those news items that's fun to write, fun to read, fun to comment on, and where no one will be able to say anything unkind. It's all just one big ball of awesome fluffiness. TuneTracker, the BeOS radio automation software, has just released something very special: TuneTracker System 5, the first version designed entirely and specifically for Haiku. In fact, it actually includes Haiku in the software package. Better yet, TuneTracker also unveiled several system-in-a-box products - which have Haiku and TuneTracker pre-installed.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Exactly twenty years ago, a document was published that played a huge role in establishing the web as we know it today. Twenty years later, and this simple and straightforward document is proof of an irrefutable fact: while closed technologies can change markets, open technologies can change the world.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Oh multitasking. That staple of computing that got thrown out the window with many modern smartphones. We got some rudimentary thing in its place - but even as multitasking on phone and tablets improves, its user-visible side remains cumbersome. Windows 8 has a neat implementation, and now it's time Android follows in it footsteps.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
They're here! Whether that excites you or not remains to be seen, but the Galaxy S4, which will most likely become the best selling Android smartphone of the year by a huge margin, has been reviewed by all the major sites, and there's lots of interesting conclusions in there - although I think most of you will get the gist.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Nokia has posted its quarterly results for the first quarter of 2013, and just like the quarters that came before, there's not a whole lot of good news in there. The rise in Lumia sales still can't even dream of making up for the sales drop in Symbian phones, and when broken down in versions, the sales figures for Windows Phone 8 Lumias in particular are very disappointing. In North America, Nokia is getting slaughtered.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
The day has finally come: Google has started shipping Google Glass to the lucky few early adopters. Now that it's shipping, Google has also unveiled a lot more about the API and the specifications of the device itself. While the company had already given out substantial details at earlier occasions, there are still a few surprises here.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
Almost exactly three years ago, I wrote about why OSNews was no longer OSNews: the alternative operating system scene had died, and OSNews, too, had to go with the times and move towards reporting on a new wave of operating systems - mobile, and all the repercussions that the explosion of smartphones and tablets have caused. Still, I was wondering something today: why aren't we seeing alternative operating systems on mobile?More Features »
Sponsored Links
Member since:
2009-08-22
In what universe did that strategic decision make sense?
From this it seems you see two reasons for google stupidity:
1) bidding with mathematical constants
2) they did not join the winning consortium
For 1), it makes me wonder if you ever bid on something of significant value (like a house, unlike some ebay thing). Since it was an English style auction (ie bidding until everyone folds and the highest bidder get the prize), the main principle is that you set a maximum price you are willing to pay (for Google it was around 4 billions $), and you bid random numbers until you win or your ceiling is reached. Whether it is 3B$ or 3.14B$ does not makes any difference, except that it was a good opportunity for google to make some buzz, at no cost.
As for 2), Google's motto is "Don't (openly) do evil", sure they do pretty crazy stuff (ie log wifi data, violate privacy settings...) but it *never* appears to come from the company management. From the very beginning it appeared that the consortium was all about trolling other companies to get money out of the patents portfolio, quiet obviously, Google considered it to be evil, and did not want to be associated with it. Whether it is a good decision or not remains to be seen. "
I admire your confidence in Google's ethics. Mostly in this particular fiasco (like the much larger Android fiasco) I just see a not very well run company saturated with a pervasive and naive sense of entitlement stumbling into ill condsidered adventures. Nothing you say contradicts my point, for a very large tech company Google acted with breathtaking nonchalance and stupidity. They deserve everything they get.